Added by: Chris Blake-Turner, Contributed by: Charlotte Sabourin
Abstract: The aim of the present paper is to discuss how the legal metaphors in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason can help us understand the work’s transcendental argumentation. I discuss Dieter Henrich’s claim that legal deductions form a methodological paradigm for all three Critiques that exempts the deductions from following a stringent logical structure. I also consider Rüdiger Bubner’s proposal that the legal metaphors show that the transcendental deduction is a rhetorical argument. On the basis of my own reading of the many different uses of legal analogies in the first Critique, I argue that they cannot form a consistent methodological paradigm as Henrich and Bubner claim.
Comment:Export citation in BibTeX formatExport text citationView this text on PhilPapersExport citation in Reference Manager formatExport citation in EndNote formatExport citation in Zotero format
Moeller, Sofie. The Court of Reason in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason
2013, Kant-Studien 104 (3):301-320.
Can’t find it?
Contribute the texts you think should be here and we’ll add them soon!